|
|
Shay wrote:
> Problem is, the presentation might have been "borrowed" in the first
> place. I didn't know about this guy until a week ago, so hopefully Jim
> will drop in here with a little history if I'm wrong, but it appears
> that the look which we associate with surrealism was stolen from:
> http://www.mcs.csuhayward.edu/~malek/Chirico.html .
The early 'metaphysical' works of de Chirico were championed by the
early surrealist leaders ( I think it was Breton primarily ) as havin a
quality that epitomized the very essence of surrealism.
> This is what I meant when I characterized Jim's image as "antagonistic."
> It is a picture of Miro, but appears to me to be very anti-Miro. Jim
> posted a link to one of his references, Miro's own protrait of himself.
> Here is a link to another of his sources (though perhaps not
> specifically this painting):
>
> http://www.moma.org/momalearning/images/pop_ups/miro_small.jpg
>
I realized as I was making the picture that elements of it were rather
contradictory if it is taken as a strict *tribute* to Miro. "Perverse"
was the actual word that kept coming into my head. Especially with the
saccharin, perfumy colors and the easy drama of the realistic eyes. I
let the picture lead the way. It was a gamble. As your link
illustrates, it was the space of the later Miro "constellation
paintings" with a kind of silhouetted screen over an ambiguous soup of
color, that had my interest. I guess one point that I wanted to make
was that this flat yet infinite soupy space was as common to surrealism
as was the infinite horizon 'dreamscapes' of Dali and followers.
-Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|